首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses
【2h】

Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses

机译:违反比例原则:关于讨价还价的实验结果

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The outcomes of bargaining over losses, the subject of this paper, have rarely been studied. But experimental studies of related situations, such as those involving bankruptcies or bequests in which the sum of the legal claims that can be made against a bank or firm or estate are greater than their values, have produced strong support for the proportionality principle. To test whether this principle would find support in other situations involving losses we designed an experimental game in which four players start out with differing initial endowments of real money. They are then informed that a certain amount of this resource has to be given back to the experimenter. How should the loss be shared among the agents? This game was run at different locations and under different treatments over a period of almost three years. We found that the proportionality principle was rarely proposed and even less frequently accepted as a solution to this problem. One of the main reasons for this result was that the two players with the smallest endowments opposed most of the proposals which asked them to contribute at least some positive amount of their own initial resource.
机译:关于损失的讨价还价的结果(本文的主题)很少研究。但是,对相关情况的实验研究,例如涉及破产或遗产的情况,可以对银行或公司或遗产提出的法律要求的总和大于其价值,这为比例原则提供了有力的支持。为了测试该原则在其他涉及亏损的情况下是否能找到支持,我们设计了一个实验性游戏,其中四名玩家以不同的真实货币of赋开始。然后,他们被告知必须将一定数量的这种资源返还给实验人员。代理商之间应如何分担损失?这场比赛在近三年的时间里,在不同的地点进行了不同的处理。我们发现比例原理很少被提出,甚至很少被接受为解决该问题的方法。造成这种结果的主要原因之一是,捐赠者人数最少的两个参与者反对大多数提议,这些提议要求他们至少提供一些积极的初始资金。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号